If he wins five states, he can force a vote at the convention between Romney and himself.

It gives him a presence that he wouldn't have otherwise.

What does winning a state entail? Getting the most votes, or getting the most delegates? After watching that segment, it sounds like they actually aren't related? Santorum won Iowa, but Paul got the most delegates?

You could put Wall Street pay right on top of these. It also makes the infamous U-shape. Even better, this one has Wall Street pay in conjunction with a measure of regulation, both of which give us the U-shape.

There's a lesson in here somewhere. Because humans tend tend to normalize things, it is hard for us to understand how extreme the times we're currently living in really are.

You could put Wall Street pay right on top of these. It also makes the infamous U-shape. Even better, this one has Wall Street pay in conjunction with a measure of regulation, both of which give us the U-shape.

There's a lesson in here somewhere.

But the government works with businesses to enforce regulations on those businesses for the benefit of the businesses. I don't understand.

“If the Secret Service scandal teaches us one thing, it is this: a man’s private sexual conduct matters when we’re talking about public office,” Fischer wrote. “Given the propensity for members of the homosexual community to engage in frequent and anonymous sexual encounters, the risk to national security of having a homosexual in a high-ranking position with access to secret information is obvious.”

It's not even hidden bigotry. It's just out and out.

Originally Posted by Dax01

The president is saying that despite the fact companies are having a bad year, CEOs take home millions of dollars in bonuses. Why are they taking home bonuses if their company is floundering? Why are they being rewarded?

That quote goes against what Kosmo was saying. He was presuming that Obama complains about CEOs who do well and take home millions of dollars, but in that quote Obama is complaining about CEOs taking home millions of dollars...even if their company is doing badly.

sometimes I wonder if before someone like Bulbo and Kosmo post their so painfully obviously misleading statements about what Obama did or said in any given day they actively forget about all their previous moments where the exact same thing happened. I think they're like the actualization of the goldfish memory myth (only true in this case), with memory spans that actively reset after like a day or something.

how one can one be so intellectually dishonest that they can twist Obama saying 'CEOs of companies that are doing poorly are getting paid too damn much' to 'rich people don't do much to earn their money, bunch of low down lazy assholes!' If you're going to make shit up, you might as well get fancy with it. Really go nuts. How about 'Obama says CEOs should be hung for daring to earn more than the 99%, and their money confiscated for use in expanding the government into your home and every waking hour!' I mean, really get creative, you know? Seems like a waste to be so wrong all the time so obviously to be rebuked one second later with the obvious answer... being creative would at least make it entertaining.

“If the Secret Service scandal teaches us one thing, it is this: a man’s private sexual conduct matters when we’re talking about public office,” Fischer wrote. “Given the propensity for members of the homosexual community to engage in frequent and anonymous sexual encounters, the risk to national security of having a homosexual in a high-ranking position with access to secret information is obvious.”

It's not even hidden bigotry. It's just out and out.

I couldn't see straight after reading that for a few moments. There are no words that I can use to adequately express my disgust.

Originally Posted by AFA website

Today, AFA is one of the largest and most effective pro-family organizations in the country with over two million online supporters and approximately 180,000 paid subscribers to the AFA Journal, the ministry's monthly magazine.

I couldn't see straight after reading that for a few moments. There are no words that I can use to adequately express my disgust.

I mean nevermind the near endless string of sexual scandals involving politicians who are straight, nevermind that many of them were our own presidents, nevermind that there is just as much potential risk of a straight dude engaging in 'anonymous sex' whilst having access to secret information... no, forget about all that.

If you're gay you're, like, naturally predisposed toward being a grotesque sexual deviant who engages every dude with a dick in a darkened bathroom stall, and you can't have someone like that flopping around all gleefully through the white house spreading his gayness!

The amazing thing is he misses the point he himself is basically raising in his own comment! If the Secret Service scandal has taught has anything it's that... OH YEAH! That straight people like to fuck people too!

I don't get it. We shouldn't try and go back to (much) better specific elements from the 70s and before because other, unrelated bad things were happening as well?

I don't think you get the big picture here. In 1979 the fed was a mess, oil prices were skyrocketing, unemployment was high, and our main rival's economic system was looking more appealing to people with some predicting that they may become the top world power in the not so distant future.

I don't think you get the big picture here. In 1979 the fed was a mess, oil prices were skyrocketing, unemployment was high, and our main rival's economic system was looking more appealing to people with some predicting that they may become the top world power in the not so distant future.

Biden was against it, as was Hillary. At the time it seemed like Obama was using it to position himself as tough on terrorism due to his lack of foreign policy experience, and many people called him out for it.

I don't think you get the big picture here. In 1979 the fed was a mess, oil prices were skyrocketing, unemployment was high, and our main rival's economic system was looking more appealing to people with some predicting that they may become the top world power in the not so distant future.

Possibly trying to win over independents who were fed up with Bush's economic and military ideals, but still wanted someone who would prove to have a strong hand...guess it worked quite well, and honestly, his foreign policy has been his strongest hand to show. Incredible in many ways.

I don't get it. We shouldn't try and go back to (much) better specific elements from the 70s and before because other, unrelated bad things were happening as well?

High taxes and high inflation are very much related to a stagnant economy, unlike standard of living and income inequality. Jealousy is not an ethical value and certainly not a value to legislate upon. You're in the wrong country if you want that to happen en masse ever.

Anyway, CEOs' salaries have grown because companies have grown. The larger a company becomes, the more important the decisions of its top figurehead become, hence the deviation of CEO pay versus the average worker's pay. If you think a specific CEO or some member of a major company does not deserve the size of his/her paycheck, then become a shareholder and make your case among your fellow shareholders of that particular company.

However, if even the average CEO of a major US company divvied up half of his/her pay, between the rest of his/her company's employees, each employee would likely receive just $20-80 more per month (before payroll and income taxes). If you think $80/month (well, again there's at least payroll taxes, so more like $75/month) more in your pocket is going to change your life around, please PM me, because that's got to be one hell of a plan.

I don't think you get the big picture here. In 1979 the fed was a mess, oil prices were skyrocketing, unemployment was high, and our main rival's economic system was looking more appealing to people with some predicting that they may become the top world power in the not so distant future.

I must confess to not always being able to tell when you're being sarcastic. For example, unemployment in 1979 was almost exactly the historical average. (Of course, if you stop the graph at 1979, it would have been just a little above average at that time for the post-WWII period (but still below 1950, 1955, 1959, 1962, and 1971-72). Post-1979 has the raised the unemployment bar enough to make 1979 average.) And I'm not really sure what your other assertions mean or how they relate.

High taxes and high inflation are very much related to a stagnant economy, unlike standard of living and income inequality. Jealousy is not an ethical value and certainly not a value to legislate upon. You're in the wrong country if you want that to happen en masse ever.

Er...tax rates have certainly been very high in times of high economic growth and activity in the past

Anyway, CEOs' salaries have grown because companies have grown. The larger a company becomes, the more important the decisions of its top figurehead become, hence the deviation of CEO pay versus the average worker's pay. If you think a specific CEO or some member of a major company does not deserve the size of his/her paycheck, then become a shareholder and make your case among your fellow shareholders of that particular company.

Why have worker wages stagnated? You might have a case for CEO-worker income disparity but not the lack of wage growth overall.

High taxes and high inflation are very much related to a stagnant economy, unlike standard of living and income inequality. Jealousy is not an ethical value and certainly not a value to legislate upon. You're in the wrong country if you want that to happen en masse ever.

Sure jealousy isn't what you legislate on, but I'm sure this guy can give you quite a few other reasons to legislate on inequality and why it should be reduced.

But keep clinging to the notion that all people who think things have become unequal are just jealous. Makes you look real smart.

Why does it have to be jealousy? Why can't it be pragmatism? There is no industrialized, first world country on the planet that doesn't have a system where the rich are expected to have a higher tax burden than everyone else.

High taxes and high inflation are very much related to a stagnant economy, unlike standard of living and income inequality. Jealousy is not an ethical value and certainly not a value to legislate upon. You're in the wrong country if you want that to happen en masse ever.

It is absolute bullshit to claim that economic prosperity comes from low taxes for the wealthy. There's absolutely no indication that a high top tax rate has any significant impact on growth. The period in which America grew to become the superpower it is had a top tax rate of 91%. I'm tired of seeing this bullshit argument.

Er...tax rates have certainly been very high in times of high economic growth and activity in the past

Why have worker wages stagnated? You might have a case for CEO-worker income disparity but not the lack of wage growth overall.

Not only that, but workers are more efficient than ever before, numbers are intentionally kept low at corporations around the country, causing one employee to have more to do than ever before. But pay hasn't rising. WTF.

Why does it have to be jealousy? Why can't it be pragmatism? There is no industrialized, first world country on the planet that doesn't have a system where the rich are expected to have a higher tax burden than everyone else.

Also, 36% top marginal rate is not jealousy, but 39% is omg jelly.
It's fine to be a lower tax rate advocate, but seriously, we can't have this discussion on such a stupid level.

I must confess to not always being able to tell when you're being sarcastic. For example, unemployment in 1979 was almost exactly the historical average. (Of course, if you stop the graph at 1979, it would have been just a little above average at that time for the post-WWII period (but still below 1950, 1955, 1959, 1962, and 1971-72). Post-1979 has the raised the unemployment bar enough to make 1979 average.) And I'm not really sure what your other assertions mean or how they relate.

I saw a modified version of this graph once, which was the same data, but the historical average line was altered: the average excluded unemployment data from quarters in which the economy was in recession (negative GDP growth). The idea was to better illustrate just how far from a "normal" historical employment level we are currently are currently; the depth of the current recession actually pushes the historical average line up a bit, making it seem less ugly than it is. (Of course, this method still leaves the high unemployment rates from post-recession recoveries in place, but it still helps to normalize the line.)

I could probably re-create it in relatively little time, and might this weekend if there is time.

High taxes and high inflation are very much related to a stagnant economy, unlike standard of living and income inequality. Jealousy is not an ethical value and certainly not a value to legislate upon. You're in the wrong country if you want that to happen en masse ever.

Income inequality is not related to economic growth. You heard it hear first.

Originally Posted by Journal of Economic Growth

We present a model that links the division of labor and economic growth with the division of wealth in society. When capital market imperfections restrict the access of poor households to capital, the division of wealth affects individual incentives to invest in specialization. In turn, the division of labor determines the dynamics of the wealth distribution. A highly concentrated distribution of wealth leads to a low degree of specialization, low productivity, and low wages. In that case workers are unable to accumulate enough wealth to invest in specialization. Hence, in a highly unequal society, there is a vicious cycle in which the degree of specialization, productivity and wages stay low, wealth and income inequality stays high and the economy stagnates. By contrast, greater equality increases investment in specialization and leads to a greater division of labor and higher long run development.

In fact, inequality matters. And it matters in all corners of the globe. ...

The increase in U.S. income inequality in recent decades is strikingly similar to the increase in the 1920s. In both cases there was a boom in the financial sector, poor people borrowed a lot, and it all ended in huge financial crises. Did the recent financial crisis result somehow from the increase in inequality?

Some time ago, we became interested in long periods of high growth (“growth spells”) and what keeps them going. The initial thought was that sometimes crises happen when a “growth spell” comes to an end, as perhaps occurred with Japan in the 1990s.

We approached the problem as a medical researcher might think of life expectancy, looking at age, weight, gender, smoking habits, etc. We do something similar, looking for what might bring long “growth spells” to an end by focusing on factors like political institutions, health and education, macroeconomic instability, debt, trade openness, and so on.

Somewhat to our surprise, income inequality stood out in our analysis as a key driver of the duration of “growth spells”.

We found that high “growth spells” were much more likely to end in countries with less equal income distributions. The effect is large. ... Inequality seemed to make a big difference almost no matter what other variables were in the model or exactly how we defined a “growth spell”.

It is absolute bullshit to claim that economic prosperity comes from low taxes for the wealthy. There's absolutely no indication that a high top tax rate has any significant impact on growth. The period in which America grew to become the superpower it is had a top tax rate of 91%. I'm tired of seeing this bullshit argument.

It is not even an argument at this point. It is an article of faith. A religion.

Anyway, CEOs' salaries have grown because companies have grown. The larger a company becomes, the more important the decisions of its top figurehead become, hence the deviation of CEO pay versus the average worker's pay. If you think a specific CEO or some member of a major company does not deserve the size of his/her paycheck, then become a shareholder and make your case among your fellow shareholders of that particular company.

However, if even the average CEO of a major US company divvied up half of his/her pay, between the rest of his/her company's employees, each employee would likely receive just $20-80 more per month (before payroll and income taxes). If you think $80/month (well, again there's at least payroll taxes, so more like $75/month) more in your pocket is going to change your life around, please PM me, because that's got to be one hell of a plan.

I'm not going to even get on you for the tax part. But this right here is dumb. It's not like the US is the only country in the world with multinational corporations. You could look at companies in South Korea, Japan, and Europe whose CEOs don't make as high a ratio in income compared to their workforce.

And why focus on sending that money back to the workers. It could also be spent on R&D or buying assets to improve the company. Hell, AT&T could improve their network, or Massey Energy could improve their mine safety standards. What I don't like is that giving all this money to a few is a waste of resources. All that capital is concentrated at the top and there is no way those few individuals can spend it all. This holds back growth, demand, and numerous other things. That is why we have taxes. It takes money that is languishing in bank accounts and redistribute it to more worthwhile things. You know that an educated workforce, a stable interstate infrastructure, and the health of the nation requires all of us to chip in. I don't want to go back to Charles Dickens/The Jungle times. Sorry.

For present day reuse the same things and replace the last line with this:

Bit of a stretch(specifically the last part) but comparable.

Nobody thought the USSR was going to overtake the west in 1979. This was the period when the sclerotic Brezhnev was in charge, the super-state started its precipitous (relative) decline and the west started an unprecedented economic expansion.

Nobody thought the USSR was going to overtake the west in 1979. This was the period when the sclerotic Brezhnev was in charge, the super-state started its precipitous (relative) decline and the west started an unprecedented economic expansion.

I recall other posters here saying otherwise. I always thought that was a bit fishy since the beginning of the end of Communism was the mid-70's.

Nobody thought the USSR was going to overtake the west in 1979. This was the period when the sclerotic Brezhnev was in charge, the super-state started its precipitous decline and the west started an unprecedented economic expansion.

Dude, what?
That was pretty much what Reagan campaigned about in 1980 ("being 2nd best is deadly", the window of vulnerability, the missile gap and all that crap).

Oh, and when you're ready for some historical outrage, go read about Team B.

Most of the conservative wing of American politics was freaking out over the Soviets in the 80s.
Boy, they are just always right about everything, aren't they?

I just heard that Romney zinged Jimmy Carter, saying "even he would have made the call."

This fucking guy. CARTER DID MAKE THAT CALL, you fucking twerp. It failed, and it cost him dearly while your piece of shit party politicized it then and has ever since, the same way you and your piece of shit party would have done to Obama if this operation failed.

Dude, what?
That was pretty much what Reagan campaigned about in 1980 ("being 2nd best is deadly", the window of vulnerability, the missile gap and all that crap).

Oh, and when you're ready for some historical outrage, go read about Team B.

Most of the conservative wing of American politics was freaking out over the Soviets in the 80s.
Boy, they are just always right about everything, aren't they?

Yes, but right wingers gunna military industrial complex. I'm not talking about political discourse. Americans did not think that the soviet way of governance was the right one to emulate.

Of course why Reagan did things like go off on the "Evil Empire" and "tear down this wall" tirades and challenged soviet backed governments and even soviet military all over the globe was precisely because he didn't fear the might of the soviet machine, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Clevinger

I just heard that Romney zinged Jimmy Carter, saying "even he would have made the call."

This fucking guy. CARTER DID MAKE THAT CALL, you fucking twerp. It failed, and it cost him dearly while your piece of shit party politicized it then and has ever since, the same way you and your piece of shit party would have done to Obama if this operation failed.

god damn my blood pressure

I had the same thought. The comment absolutely doesn't make sense. Something like "even Chamberlain would have made that call!" might be a better statement? I don't know. But like you pointed out Carted did make the call, and it was incredibly ballsy and essentially ended his chances at re-election.

Yeah, I was pretty offended by him bringing up Carter like that. I guess it plays to the faux narrative on the right. But Carter did make that call . . . and brave servicemen died. But I guess Romney forgot about all that? How soon we forget.

Yeah, I was pretty offended by him bringing up Carter like that. I guess it plays to the faux narrative on the right. But Carter did make that call . . . and brave servicemen died. But I guess Romney forgot about all that? How soon we forget.

Reading up on Operation Eagle Claw (the failed hostage rescue attempt), it sounds like such a poorly-planned mission from the military, with a very post-Vietnam Pentagon mindset. Obama actually determined the nature of the mission far more than Carter did, but Obama somehow deserves no credit and Carter is blamed for sandstorms.

That was Jon Stewart being merciful and going easy on em. Anybody with more than one functioning brain cell can imagine this situation in the reverse and call out the hand-wringing for the history denying bullshit farce that it is.

For too long 9/11 was politics, it was all there was, and all there was flew a Republican banner. There was no unified America, at least not for very long. It soon transformed into "True Americans" and everybody else, that fifth column that sought only to criticize and undermine our nation.

Good thing I find sustenance from crocodile tears and can appreciate that bullshit makes flowers grow.

Reading up on Operation Eagle Claw (the failed hostage rescue attempt), it sounds like such a poorly-planned mission from the military, with a very post-Vietnam Pentagon mindset. Obama actually determined the nature of the mission far more than Carter did, but Obama somehow deserves no credit and Carter is blamed for sandstorms.

It was a crazy-ambitious plan . . . there is no way it would have gone smoothly since there were so many hostages. I wonder what the alternate history would have been if they didn't have those problems out in the desert. I can't see how they would have got everyone out quickly and then transported everyone to the soccer stadium. It might have actually ended up much uglier than it did.

It was a crazy-ambitious plan . . . there is no way it would have gone smoothly since there were so many hostages. I wonder what the alternate history would have been if they didn't have those problems out in the desert. I can't see how they would have got everyone out quickly and then transported everyone to the soccer stadium. It might have actually ended up much uglier than it did.

Its a good idea to put this idea out into the public consciousness. One that is so soon to forget impactful decisions and their consequences. Throw aside the Republican vs Democrat contest for a moment and just consider the risks involved in these operations, not just from physical threats, but from bureaucracy stepping over itself, the role of egos clashing to get their piece of the action, political fallout, so-called collateral damage, and the guys who go directly into the fire for both noble and disturbing reasons.

Its a conversation long overdue since the choice was publicly made to include a little more "dark side" into our operations.

I don't have to go into work until a bit later tomorrow, so I can answer some of these:

Originally Posted by The_Technomancer

Er...tax rates have certainly been very high in times of high economic growth and activity in the past

All right, I'll try to briefly describe some US history (in way that it's rarely described): by the turn of century, the great scientific discoveries of the mid and late 19th century begin or continue to take commercial form, thus new technologies create new industries, which need workers to operate and new demand for new products, which expanding- requiring more workers. The country booms in the 1920s and Americans jump ahead all other countries in standard of living by a wide margin. However, very poor investing strategies, lack of market government regulation, lack of a basic safety net, and lack of international accepting of American debt lead to the Great Depression. FDR->New Deal->slight employment rate increase->second wave of the Great Depression->WWII->massive demand for war necessities and investments in technology->much of the male population forgoe secondary/tertiary education->WWII ends-> much the (male) population have equal education levels, yet even more technological improvements lead to more industries and jobs created->these, with cheap land prices and a large population growth lead to massive economic (GDP... GNP at the time) growth rates-> many of today's large tech, energy, manufacturing, retail, financial, pharmaceutical, etc were started or greatly expanded during this period. The very high tax rates of the 1950s/1960s only applied to the top .1% or so the population and tax rates were far more stratified than today. Around 90% of the US budget during these went to the defense budget, which funded (and still funds) the largest blue-sky R&D high-end technology projects in the world (most of NASA's fundamental tech comes from initial "defense spending").

Today, the rate of new industry (not new company) growth is not and will likely never be not the same as the 1950s. General technology advancement is approaching a the upper logarithmic portion of an "S" curve, and such slower new industry growth will likely continue for many decades. There's a reason why you're not flying around in... "flying cars." It's not because "those evil corporations haven't put enough money into 'R&D;' it's because getting a couple tons of metal airborne requires a shit ton of energy and that jet fuel and jet engines aren't cheap and will not be for many, many decades. Without a liquid/solid fuel source or a small reactor, flight on this planet and beyond are essentially impossible. Anyway, the internet boom of the 1990s was probably the last large new industry we'll see until space mining in the 2100s/2200s. While I do not think 4+%/year GDP growth is impossible for the US in the coming decade, it'll require government (federal, state, and local) to tread very carefully, and at least not set the country up for massive future debts.

Originally Posted by The_Technomancer

Why have worker wages stagnated? You might have a case for CEO-worker income disparity but not the lack of wage growth overall.

While income has grown considerably beyond the rate of inflation since 1979, absolute income, ultimately, is irrelevant. The important thing is what one can purchase with one's income. How does Warren Buffett having $100+ billion negatively you or me? Are we not able to seek a raise or obtain a job with a higher salary with Buffett currently in possession of so much "wealth?" The reality is that the US economy is so massive and that no single very wealthy person or millions of very wealthy people can prevent one from obtaining a higher income. In fact, the US has by far the most leeway for printing money- the pie massively expands every year. Even EV would agree that the US has massive monetary leeway, it's just he believes that this leeway will be constant and eternal, which in reality, as the developing world becomes richer and more powerful, the globe's acceptance of US' (and Europe's and Japan's) debt will shrink.

Originally Posted by Oblivion

Why does it have to be jealousy? Why can't it be pragmatism? There is no industrialized, first world country on the planet that doesn't have a system where the rich are expected to have a higher tax burden than everyone else.

There's a difference between legislating upon income inequality and controlling debt/maintaining social entitlement programs. On the federal level, the US already has a progressive tax code (states differ). However, the questions of very specific federal income tax rates are good ones. The debate shouldn't whether taxes should be "higher or lower," but which taxes at which rate for which time periods. This is a massive optimization problem, which I don't think any developed nation has solved correctly given their population trends and their standard of living expectations.

Originally Posted by empty vessel

Income inequality is not related to economic growth. You heard it hear first.

I don't have a subscription to springerlink (I did have access while at school). But, for your IMF blog link dealy, the authors write suspiciously similar to yourself- long-winded, repetitive, avoiding specifics, and constantly making the usual human mistake of correlation = causation. Anyway, income inequality causes lack of labor specialization?... Haha, more like, the reverse (which isn't a bad thing). Continuing as I said above, as technological improvements increased, more industries required more more specialized labor. The WWII generation had relatively greater income equality because their education and later workforce skills were more equal. The more educated Boomers led to greater specialization, and thus higher demand skills and greater income inequality. Gen X and Gen Y may create even further income inequality. In a technologically advanced and growing society, income inequality is inevitable.

For Brazil, they say economic growth occurred when income inequality decreased. All right, for most previously considered "third world countries", the wealthy and the authoritarian government (which were very extremely interlocked- far beyond any degree in any current developed nation) maintained an overwhelming percentage of the country's GDP, while much of the rest of Brazil was quite poor. This was nothing like the US in the 1980s-today- it's more comparable to the US in the 1870s-1890s. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett do not hold candle to the robber barons of the US' past (which for those two is particularly unfair considering their massive global altruistic efforts). Brazil's GDP and middle class rose due to its opening of economy, foreign investment, and relative security in its legal system. Income equality has next to nothing to do with those- Brazil's income inequality is likely rising from recent year's past, yet the middle class continues to become richer and richer.

Keeping with Latin America, how has the difference between the middle classes of Chile and Argentina changed over the recent years? Why has the Argentinian economy continued have many rises followed by quick busts, while the Chilean economy has steadily outpaced their neighbor/futball rival?

Originally Posted by Dr. Pangloss

I'm not going to even get on you for the tax part. But this right here is dumb. It's not like the US is the only country in the world with multinational corporations. You could look at companies in South Korea, Japan, and Europe whose CEOs don't make as high a ratio in income compared to their workforce.

And why focus on sending that money back to the workers. It could also be spent on R&D or buying assets to improve the company. Hell, AT&T could improve their network, or Massey Energy could improve their mine safety standards. What I don't like is that giving all this money to a few is a waste of resources. All that capital is concentrated at the top and there is no way those few individuals can spend it all. This holds back growth, demand, and numerous other things. That is why we have taxes. It takes money that is languishing in bank accounts and redistribute it to more worthwhile things. You know that an educated workforce, a stable interstate infrastructure, and the health of the nation requires all of us to chip in. I don't want to go back to Charles Dickens/The Jungle times. Sorry.

Taking your AT&T example (after a very quick internet search), in 2011, AT&T's revenues were roughly $125 billion, while it's CEO's (Randall Stephenson) total compensation was $18.7 (it apparently could have been $20+ million, but the flubbed T-Mobile merger had some ramifications... yeah, I know, boo-hoo). So, (18.7*10^6)/(125*10^9) *100= 0.0156%... wow, look at how much AT&T could have saved there from not paying their CEO anything. They could have maybe built a single cell phone tower there!... So, you guys may want to reevaluate how much CEO compensation "hold back" the US economy. But, as I said before, this doesn't mean, upper federal income tax rate should not increase, it means don't use "income inequality" as some populist scapegoat. Just hammer Republicans on the very real math for reducing the deficit. And don't listen to EV (jeez, perhaps that's why you take such ridiculous stances- to be referred as your own abbreviation in a large internet message board), that deficits don't matter. You become little Cheney minions if you do.

[I'm not checking for spelling or grammar mistakes, so if you see some glaring ones (I've been drinking too much while on adderall, hence why I'm bothering to type this shit).... so... ...suck it.]